|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Illinois House Democrats re-elected state Rep. Mike Madigan to his longtime post as House Speaker Jan. 11.
Homer 33C students experiment with 3Doodler pens
News Release
Homer CCSD 33C
Goodings Grove Luther J. Schilling William E. Young William J. Butler
Hadley Middle Homer Jr. High
Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628
For Immediate Release:
Jan. 11, 2017
A Hadley Middle School sixth-grader uses a 3Doodler pen to draw a three-dimensional dog during a Computer Club meeting on Jan. 10.
Drawing in 3D
Homer 33C students experiment with 3Doodler pens
Imagine being able to draw a three-dimensional replica of the Eiffel Tower or a customized case for your cell phone.
That’s what Homer 33C students will be doing as they experiment with 3D pens in the STEAM labs at Homer Junior High School and Hadley Middle School.
Hadley Middle School students learn how to use a 3Doodler pen by creating a three-dimensional cube.
A Hadley Middle School student shows what he was able to make with a 3Doodler pen.
Technology teacher Andrew Dole purchased six 3Doodler pens through DonorsChoose, a nonprofit website that helps public school teachers secure funding for learning materials and experiences.
“3D printing is one of the most popular and newest tech tools out there,” said Dole, “and we want to learn how to manipulate it.”
3D pens are electric pens that write with heated plastic instead of ink or pencil. Users are able to draw three-dimensional shapes that dry and harden within in a matter of seconds.
“The ability to build something from nothing is an amazing learning experience that all students need to experience,” said Dole, who envisions students working together in the district’s STEAM labs to create unique, one-of-a kind masterpieces.
The pens arrived during winter break and students in Dole’s 6th grade Computer Club were among the first to try them out.
“You have to have a steady hand,” said one student as he attempted to draw a three-dimensional cube with the pen.
“It’s tricky to get a feel for when to stop it in the air,” said another.
The pens are the latest addition to the district’s STEAM labs — interactive learning centers that inspire integrative learning in science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics.
Once students have had an opportunity to use the lab’s 3D pens and 3D printers, Dole plans to have them compare and contrast the advantages of each one.
“These 3D pens will allow students to experience the freedom that others feel when they are allowed to be creative without boundaries,” he said.
Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/homer33c?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
See if Homer 33C’s Little Learners preschool program is right for your family
News Release
Homer CCSD 33C
Goodings Grove Luther J. Schilling William E. Young William J. Butler
Hadley Middle Homer Jr. High
Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628
For Immediate Release:
Jan. 11, 2017
See if Homer 33C’s Little Learners preschool program is right for your family
Stop by Homer Public Library’s Preschool Round Up on Feb. 1
Are you looking for the perfect preschool for your child?
Then stop by Homer Township Public Library on Feb. 1 to learn about local preschools, including Homer 33C’s Little Learners program.
Special Services Program Coordinator Patrice Ryan will be there from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. to share information about Homer 33C’s unique preschool program for children ages 3-5.
Taught by licensed teachers and related services staff, the Little Learners preschool program enables children of all ability levels to get a head start on learning by working on their pre-academic and social skills with teaching professionals.
Children meet five days a week during the school year from August to June at Young School, 16240 S. Cedar Road, where they enjoy physical education in the school gymnasium, reading time in the school library and music activities in the school music room.
Current tuition is $250 a month.
Participants must be district residents, between the ages of 3 and 5 (as of Sept. 1, 2017), toilet trained and pass a preschool screening.
While registration is offered year-round, space is limited. Openings will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis.
For more information, please call Homer 33C at 708-226-7649.
Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/homer33c?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
How to Drain the Health Care Swamp
How to Drain the Health Care Swamp
Conservative principles, not political posturing, should guide the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
Conservative principles, not political posturing, should guide the repeal and replacement of Obamacare.
By Gov. Bobby Jindal for POLITICO
Republicans have been winning elections for years by promising to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Now that the dog has caught the car, we have to know what to do with it. Republicans have captured the White House, and kept the House, Senate and a majority of the governors’ offices. There are no more excuses, and voters are rightfully expecting quick and bold action.
Already, though, the media is beginning to highlight or perhaps even create differences among the Republican victors, with stories about some in the party wanting a quicker timeline for repeal than others. Before we get bogged down by a debate about whether Obamacare should be repealed within two or three years (and I am for sooner than later), it would be helpful to remember why conservatives have opposed Barack Obama’s health law so vehemently. And no, despite the president’s protests, it is not simply because of the name. Articulating our principled objections will help inform how Republicans should replace this flawed legislation.
Obamacare has famously failed to live up to its sponsor’s lofty promises, as evidenced by health-care costs and premiums that continue to rise at an unacceptable rate, as well as millions of Americans losing their preferred health-care plans and access to their physicians. But there are three deeper fundamental failures embedded in the law that must be fully repealed and not transplanted into any Republican replacement.
First, Obamacare involved a massive increase in federal taxes and spending. Our federal government now spends more, and has borrowed more, than ever before. No society has ever taxed, spent, or borrowed its way into prosperity, and we will not be the first. It was wrong to increase government spending, to create a massive new entitlement program, when we could not afford the government we already had. Mortgaging our children’s future to sustain our bloated government could render us the first generation of Americans that leaves behind fewer opportunities than those we inherited from our parents.
Some Republicans want to forfeit this fight before it even starts. They argue it is not realistic to return to pre-Obamacare levels of federal spending and taxation, that any repeal plan that taxes and spends even one dollar less than Obamacare is a victory. Nonsense. If the conservative response to eight years of unprecedented liberal spending is to simply slow the pace, rather than reverse the direction, then we are done. What is the point of winning elections if we are not committed to shrinking government spending and government dependence? Pretending to be cheap liberals has never been a winning strategy; we must instead be honest conservatives. We must repeal all of the new Obamacare spending and taxes, and consider that our baseline against which we measure any repeal plan.
Second, Obamacare made millions of able-bodied Americans newly dependent on direct government assistance for their health care. Whether through a massive expansion of Medicaid beyond its original target populations of poor children, disabled and the elderly, or through exchange subsidies for the vast majority of participants, Obamacare masked the true cost of health care, rather than truly “bending the cost curve down.” Pretending that subsidized health care is affordable without considering the true cost to taxpayers is disingenuous at best.
We must not allow liberals and the mainstream media to define success by the number of Americans dependent on government programs. Republicans should focus instead on market-based solutions that make health care more affordable for all Americans. Targeted, flexible and temporary safety-net solutions, governed at the local level, are preferable to centrally run, top- down, one-size-fits-all subsidies that reduce the incentive to work and make millions of Americans newly dependent on the government. Health-care reform must not continue to be a Trojan Horse for yet another massive liberal redistribution program.
Third, Obamacare inserts the federal government into the health-care system, reducing the autonomy of patients and providers. In addition to the much-derided individual and employer mandates, the federal government is now involved in micromanaging health-care plans. Some of this is the inevitable result of the government regulating what it subsidizes (another argument against general government dependence). Federal lawmakers and bureaucrats now find themselves trapped in an endless cycle of cutting provider prices, imposing volume caps and restricting access to new, expensive or alternative procedures, yet they still fail to meet budget targets.
Insurance companies increasingly resemble regulated utilities, offering only the veneer of private sector choice and competition, while federal bureaucrats dictate product design and pricing. Just as customers were allowed to buy any color Model T they wanted, as long as they wanted black, Americans today are allowed to buy any health insurance product they want, as long as they want what the federal government allows them to have. Providers are increasingly merging to achieve the economies of scale necessary to comply with increasingly complex federal regulations. Innovation and competition are stifled as big businesses and big government become interdependent in yet another example of crony capitalism. The unintended consequences have included skyrocketing premiums, decreased plan choice and limited provider networks.
Conservative health-care reform should be based on three principles: competition, individual autonomy and local governance. There is no reason to suppose Washington is constitutionally empowered, much less competent, to make our health-care decisions for us. Consumer choice should be expanded within Medicare, the states should have more flexibility in designing and running their Medicaid programs and Congress should stop doing the work of state insurance commissioners. But even more importantly, we must trust patients and their doctors to make decisions for themselves.
This moment is a major test for Republicans. Health care consumes a large and growing share of our economy, involves people at their most vulnerable moments and often has life or death consequences. Republicans have a unique opportunity to demonstrate that our principles are better, that trusting the American people over the bureaucrats is a sure bet every time. Repealing and replacing Obamacare consistent with conservative principles will prove that we are serious about draining the swamp—not just winning elections.
Already, though, the media is beginning to highlight or perhaps even create differences among the Republican victors, with stories about some in the party wanting a quicker timeline for repeal than others. Before we get bogged down by a debate about whether Obamacare should be repealed within two or three years (and I am for sooner than later), it would be helpful to remember why conservatives have opposed Barack Obama’s health law so vehemently. And no, despite the president’s protests, it is not simply because of the name. Articulating our principled objections will help inform how Republicans should replace this flawed legislation.
Obamacare has famously failed to live up to its sponsor’s lofty promises, as evidenced by health-care costs and premiums that continue to rise at an unacceptable rate, as well as millions of Americans losing their preferred health-care plans and access to their physicians. But there are three deeper fundamental failures embedded in the law that must be fully repealed and not transplanted into any Republican replacement.
First, Obamacare involved a massive increase in federal taxes and spending. Our federal government now spends more, and has borrowed more, than ever before. No society has ever taxed, spent, or borrowed its way into prosperity, and we will not be the first. It was wrong to increase government spending, to create a massive new entitlement program, when we could not afford the government we already had. Mortgaging our children’s future to sustain our bloated government could render us the first generation of Americans that leaves behind fewer opportunities than those we inherited from our parents.
Some Republicans want to forfeit this fight before it even starts. They argue it is not realistic to return to pre-Obamacare levels of federal spending and taxation, that any repeal plan that taxes and spends even one dollar less than Obamacare is a victory. Nonsense. If the conservative response to eight years of unprecedented liberal spending is to simply slow the pace, rather than reverse the direction, then we are done. What is the point of winning elections if we are not committed to shrinking government spending and government dependence? Pretending to be cheap liberals has never been a winning strategy; we must instead be honest conservatives. We must repeal all of the new Obamacare spending and taxes, and consider that our baseline against which we measure any repeal plan.
Second, Obamacare made millions of able-bodied Americans newly dependent on direct government assistance for their health care. Whether through a massive expansion of Medicaid beyond its original target populations of poor children, disabled and the elderly, or through exchange subsidies for the vast majority of participants, Obamacare masked the true cost of health care, rather than truly “bending the cost curve down.” Pretending that subsidized health care is affordable without considering the true cost to taxpayers is disingenuous at best.
We must not allow liberals and the mainstream media to define success by the number of Americans dependent on government programs. Republicans should focus instead on market-based solutions that make health care more affordable for all Americans. Targeted, flexible and temporary safety-net solutions, governed at the local level, are preferable to centrally run, top- down, one-size-fits-all subsidies that reduce the incentive to work and make millions of Americans newly dependent on the government. Health-care reform must not continue to be a Trojan Horse for yet another massive liberal redistribution program.
Third, Obamacare inserts the federal government into the health-care system, reducing the autonomy of patients and providers. In addition to the much-derided individual and employer mandates, the federal government is now involved in micromanaging health-care plans. Some of this is the inevitable result of the government regulating what it subsidizes (another argument against general government dependence). Federal lawmakers and bureaucrats now find themselves trapped in an endless cycle of cutting provider prices, imposing volume caps and restricting access to new, expensive or alternative procedures, yet they still fail to meet budget targets.
Insurance companies increasingly resemble regulated utilities, offering only the veneer of private sector choice and competition, while federal bureaucrats dictate product design and pricing. Just as customers were allowed to buy any color Model T they wanted, as long as they wanted black, Americans today are allowed to buy any health insurance product they want, as long as they want what the federal government allows them to have. Providers are increasingly merging to achieve the economies of scale necessary to comply with increasingly complex federal regulations. Innovation and competition are stifled as big businesses and big government become interdependent in yet another example of crony capitalism. The unintended consequences have included skyrocketing premiums, decreased plan choice and limited provider networks.
Conservative health-care reform should be based on three principles: competition, individual autonomy and local governance. There is no reason to suppose Washington is constitutionally empowered, much less competent, to make our health-care decisions for us. Consumer choice should be expanded within Medicare, the states should have more flexibility in designing and running their Medicaid programs and Congress should stop doing the work of state insurance commissioners. But even more importantly, we must trust patients and their doctors to make decisions for themselves.
This moment is a major test for Republicans. Health care consumes a large and growing share of our economy, involves people at their most vulnerable moments and often has life or death consequences. Republicans have a unique opportunity to demonstrate that our principles are better, that trusting the American people over the bureaucrats is a sure bet every time. Repealing and replacing Obamacare consistent with conservative principles will prove that we are serious about draining the swamp—not just winning elections.
Illinois lost an average of more than 10,000 students per year
Illinois Policy Institute 1/6/2017
Illinois lost 150,000 university students from 2000-2014
Misplaced priorities in education funding have driven students out of the state and skyrocketed tuition costs.
The U.S. Census Bureau recently revealed that Illinois, in its third consecutive year of population decline, is losing more people than any other state in the Midwest.
The state has also been unpopular with students since at least the start of the 21st century. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Illinois likely lost more than 150,000 students, on net, to other states from 2000 to 2014. The data, which look at the migration of freshmen or first-time degree seeking students at all institutions each even-numbered year, show that Illinois lost an average of more than 10,000 students per year. Only New Jersey, which significantly lacks enough universities to accommodate all of its students, lost more than Illinois.
In addition, the New York Times reported that in 2014, 16,000 students left Illinois to attend public university in another state, while only 2,000 came to Illinois from out of state to attend public university. That means that for each public university student Illinois gained, it lost eight.
Illinois’ public universities have drastically redirected state funding away from students in recent years, choosing instead to spend the bulk of tax dollars on administrators and pensions. Thus, prioritization of state funding, rather than a lack thereof, is largely responsible for diminished investment in higher-education operating costs over the years. The state now spends more than 50 percent of its public universities’ budget for on higher-education retirement costs, up from 20 percent a decade ago.
This same spending conundrum faces all educational funding in Illinois. Investments in students and institutions come second to retirement payouts. State spending on higher-education operations is decreasing while funds are being radically shifted toward higher-education retirement costs. If retirement payments weren’t so out of control – in 2014, the highest-paid pension recipient received more than half a million dollars in annual retirement compensation – universities could perhaps afford to put more money into the classrooms.
Meanwhile, Illinois’ tuition rates have skyrocketed almost 100 percent over the past decade. University of Illinois’ in-state tuition is now almost $6,000 higher than both University of Indiana’s and University of Wisconsin’s, and $8,000 higher than University of Iowa’s. And reciprocity agreements allow Midwestern students to attend certain universities in participating states at in-state tuition rates. It’s no wonder students are leaving Illinois.
Students are no doubt contributing to Illinois’ out-migration woes, but this is not a new phenomenon the budget impasse created. Insufficient state funding is not an adequate explanation for Illinois’ student out-migration. The redistribution of higher-education funds over the past decade is also a major factor.
In order to bring students back to the Land of Lincoln, public universities need to make serious spending reforms, and Springfield must end the uncertainty by agreeing to a balanced budget.
The state has also been unpopular with students since at least the start of the 21st century. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Illinois likely lost more than 150,000 students, on net, to other states from 2000 to 2014. The data, which look at the migration of freshmen or first-time degree seeking students at all institutions each even-numbered year, show that Illinois lost an average of more than 10,000 students per year. Only New Jersey, which significantly lacks enough universities to accommodate all of its students, lost more than Illinois.
In addition, the New York Times reported that in 2014, 16,000 students left Illinois to attend public university in another state, while only 2,000 came to Illinois from out of state to attend public university. That means that for each public university student Illinois gained, it lost eight.
Illinois’ public universities have drastically redirected state funding away from students in recent years, choosing instead to spend the bulk of tax dollars on administrators and pensions. Thus, prioritization of state funding, rather than a lack thereof, is largely responsible for diminished investment in higher-education operating costs over the years. The state now spends more than 50 percent of its public universities’ budget for on higher-education retirement costs, up from 20 percent a decade ago.
This same spending conundrum faces all educational funding in Illinois. Investments in students and institutions come second to retirement payouts. State spending on higher-education operations is decreasing while funds are being radically shifted toward higher-education retirement costs. If retirement payments weren’t so out of control – in 2014, the highest-paid pension recipient received more than half a million dollars in annual retirement compensation – universities could perhaps afford to put more money into the classrooms.
Meanwhile, Illinois’ tuition rates have skyrocketed almost 100 percent over the past decade. University of Illinois’ in-state tuition is now almost $6,000 higher than both University of Indiana’s and University of Wisconsin’s, and $8,000 higher than University of Iowa’s. And reciprocity agreements allow Midwestern students to attend certain universities in participating states at in-state tuition rates. It’s no wonder students are leaving Illinois.
Students are no doubt contributing to Illinois’ out-migration woes, but this is not a new phenomenon the budget impasse created. Insufficient state funding is not an adequate explanation for Illinois’ student out-migration. The redistribution of higher-education funds over the past decade is also a major factor.
In order to bring students back to the Land of Lincoln, public universities need to make serious spending reforms, and Springfield must end the uncertainty by agreeing to a balanced budget.
Rx for Obummercare: pull — no, yank the plug, totally
Rx for Obummercare: pull — no, yank the plug, totally
When Congress reconvened earlier this week, “leaders of both houses [said] their first order of business [would] be to repeal Obamacare. If they do…, it will be a slap in the face to President Barack Obama just three weeks before he leaves the White House.”You might think with an incentive like that, Republicans would immediately, joyously and completely rescind Barry’s nationalization of medical insurance. But, being Republicans, they’ve threatened instead to replace it. Thank God these bozos aren’t doctors: they’d cure cancer by infecting us with bubonic plague.
Swapping a Republican for a Dimocratic plan in which politicians control medical insurance — and us — meets that hackneyed definition of insanity: repeatedly doing the same thing while expecting a different result. American governments have interfered in both the medical and insurance marketplaces, with prices skyrocketing and patients losing autonomy and choice, ever since 1849: that year, New York State passed the first law regulating insurance. The bill seemed innocuous, even beneficial, as initial legislation usually does: it “authorized” the “State Comptroller … to require the companies to submit annual financial statements and to deny a company the right to operate if capital securities and investments did not remain secure.” More to the point, government had wedged its foot in the industry’s door.
“[M]ost medical care in the U.S.” throughout the 19th century remained “basically medieval — a bunch of potions that did nothing. Luckily, though, they were cheap potions. Health care was a trivial part of the average person’s annual budget. In 1900, the average American spent $5 a year on health care ($100 in today’s money). No one had health insurance, because you don’t need insurance for something that costs $5 a year. … [H]ospitals were poorhouses where the indigent went to die.”
But with the advent of more effective, modern drugs, “reform began around 1910, based on the Progressive philosophy of ‘scientific management’ of human affairs. …[A] ‘muckraking’ report called for closure of all medical schools that did not meet a certain scientific standard, and for licensing laws. … As many as 22 percent of existing medical schools closed or merged including all but two of seven schools for blacks. The number of medical students declined from 28,142 to 13,798 between 1904 and 1920. The immediate outcome was a dramatic increase in medical prices — and in health care disparities. Access to care in rural and poor areas was especially problematic.”
Fortunately, given that diminished availability, consumers who “proved willing to pay for care when they were really sick” spurned “checkups” and treatment of “survivable illnesses. By the late 1920s, hospitals noticed most of their beds were going empty every night. They wanted to get people who weren’t deathly ill to start coming in.” Dallas’ Baylor Hospital “started looking for a way to get regular folks … to pay for health care the same way they paid for [other luxuries] — a tiny bit each month. Hospital officials started small, offering a deal to a group of public school teachers … to pay 50 cents each month in exchange for Baylor picking up the tab on hospital visits.
“When the Great Depression hit, almost every hospital in the country saw its patient load disappear. The Baylor idea became hugely popular. It eventually got a name: Blue Cross.”
Amidst today’s caterwauling about medical attention’s being a “right” rather than a luxury, remember that previous generations considered doctors and hospitals so needless that the industry had to create a market for itself. How necessary are the procedures, tests, and drugs it dispenses now, especially when we could avoid most maladies by shunning processed food and grains?
During WWII, the new industry enjoyed an inadvertent boost from the “1942 Stabilization Act, a work of Congress designed to limit wage increases during wartime. The point of it was to combat inflation, which, in the words of the act itself, ‘threaten[s] our military effort and our domestic economic structure.’ The effect, though, was that employers — needing to recruit workers at a time when many able-bodied men were overseas — began offering more generous health benefits.”
Nor was that the only unintended consequence of the Stabilization Act: under it, “health premiums deducted by employers — while still considered part of compensation for the purposes of labor negotiations — don’t count as income, and, as a result, workers don’t pay income or payroll taxes on those benefits. The result was an incentive for the employer, rather than the employee, to make health insurance arrangements, and the era of third-party health insurance was fully underway.”
The political meddling reached its zenith under Barry Hussein. Like all federal programs, Obummercare has failed miserably at its stated purpose, i.e., “improv[ing] access, affordability, and quality in health care for Americans.” Indeed, its many victims can attest that it’s done precisely the opposite: “U.S. health care spending reach[ed a] new peak” in 2016 of “$10,345 per person” — the highest increase in 32 years and “faster than wage growth in America.”
Contrast those results with how successfully the “Affordable Care Act” has achieved its actual mission: bringing 17 percent of the American economy under even more governmental control. And then consider how few of the uninsured “benefitted” from Obummercare: only “20 million people gain[ed] health insurance coverage between the passage of the law in 2010 and early 2016.” Moreover, “prior to implementation of the ACA, over 47 million Americans — nearly” — we might more accurately say “merely”— “18 percent of the population — were without health insurance coverage.” Far from the dire emergency politicians portrayed, 82 percent of Americans carried insurance before Dimocrats nationalized it. Nor did the industry face any crisis other than too much governmental regulation (such as “mandated benefits,” legal hindrances on selling on across states’ lines, etc.).
With Obummercare, as with all their other “solutions,” rulers ginned up a problem and then exploited it to grab further power over us. Yet “House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)” claims, “‘The law is failing while we speak’…”
Not with regard to its true objective.
— Becky Akers
Illinois residents aren't frogs, won't remain in Madigan's boiling pot
Tribune: Illinois residents aren’t frogs, won’t remain in Madigan’s boiling pot
Invoking an old wives’ tale referring to ambivalent, “average” amphibians, the Chicago Tribune recently created an analogy between disinterested Illinois taxpayers and a hypothetical pot of frog stew to illustrate the state’s simmering fiscal status.
With Illinois’ economic climate approaching a boiling point, writer John Kass referred to the saving grace that distinguishes humans from frogs: the ability to make reasoned decisions.
With Illinois’ economic climate approaching a boiling point, writer John Kass referred to the saving grace that distinguishes humans from frogs: the ability to make reasoned decisions.
“If taxpayers were frogs, they’d sit calmly in that warm stockpot forged over the decades by Democratic boss (House Speaker) Mike Madigan (D-Chicago), with the temperature rising all around them,” Kass said. “They’d sit, and they’d never jump out.”
Frogs don’t read Census statistics, Kass said. They know nothing of the Land of Lincoln’s simmering state of finances, and they would harbor no awareness of pension debt, school bailouts or union politics.
“Your average frog wouldn’t know that Madigan has had the political leverage in Illinois for decades,” Kass said.
The bottom line — aside from the overt difference of being two highly dissimilar biological species — is simply that frogs don’t read. Because of that, they don’t care about Madigan’s record of catering to the powerful and connected class. They don’t care about anything, as a matter of fact. They mainly eat flies and float, Kass said.
Fortunately, taxpayers are not frogs, Kass said. They don’t need to figure out how to jump out of a pot. They can pick up on trends, pack up their belongings and move out of Illinois at will in their own decisive response to the state’s failures — and so they have, Kass said.
The newest U.S. Census Bureau report showed that Illinois ranks at rock bottom nationwide for population change, losing over 114,000 inhabitants in a recent 12-month period — more than any other state in the nation. At 12.8 million residents, the state registered its lowest numbers in the last decade, while other states either gained or maintained their populations.
Additionally, analysts at the Illinois Policy Institute said those who are out-migrating tend to earn higher incomes than those arriving, with the difference totaling between $3 billion and $4 billion annually. Institute economist Michael Lucci said that when it comes to evaluating the migration trend, the topic dubbed “wealth flight” is “not being especially discussed,” at least publicly.
Frogs don’t read Census statistics, Kass said. They know nothing of the Land of Lincoln’s simmering state of finances, and they would harbor no awareness of pension debt, school bailouts or union politics.
“Your average frog wouldn’t know that Madigan has had the political leverage in Illinois for decades,” Kass said.
The bottom line — aside from the overt difference of being two highly dissimilar biological species — is simply that frogs don’t read. Because of that, they don’t care about Madigan’s record of catering to the powerful and connected class. They don’t care about anything, as a matter of fact. They mainly eat flies and float, Kass said.
Fortunately, taxpayers are not frogs, Kass said. They don’t need to figure out how to jump out of a pot. They can pick up on trends, pack up their belongings and move out of Illinois at will in their own decisive response to the state’s failures — and so they have, Kass said.
The newest U.S. Census Bureau report showed that Illinois ranks at rock bottom nationwide for population change, losing over 114,000 inhabitants in a recent 12-month period — more than any other state in the nation. At 12.8 million residents, the state registered its lowest numbers in the last decade, while other states either gained or maintained their populations.
Additionally, analysts at the Illinois Policy Institute said those who are out-migrating tend to earn higher incomes than those arriving, with the difference totaling between $3 billion and $4 billion annually. Institute economist Michael Lucci said that when it comes to evaluating the migration trend, the topic dubbed “wealth flight” is “not being especially discussed,” at least publicly.
High property taxes?
“What about those who remain? It’s like a cable company losing its customers to competitors,” Lucci said. “The cable company responds by raising its rates on existing customers, and that adds to the pressure on those who stay.”
Kass said residents are fed up.
“Illinois is past the tipping point,” Kass said. With tight Democratic control of Springfield and government gears grinding to a halt over pensions, school budgets, elected officials’ paychecks and more, private businesses are among the first to notice that the state’s economic atmosphere is not especially welcoming at this point.
That perception creates a subtle chain reaction. With fewer private-sector jobs available, young adults entering the work force seek employment out of state. Their elders, without much incentive to stay behind, often go too, taking their capital with them and creating larger losses for Illinois.
In the public sector, reactions are different because the government happens to be the state’s largest employer. While civic employees put up with tax hikes, they take some solace in knowing that the outlay comes back to them in the form of their own salaries and benefits.
Hence, public unions tend to support the Democrats. Furthermore, “Boss Madigan” is allied with the union sector. Complicating the cycle further is the fact that the Democrats and unions enjoy a particular rapport with the media, the Tribune said. Taking full advantage of their connections to depict their interests in just the right light, they strive to portray themselves as victims.
Private-sector workers, by contrast, elude typecasting because they tend to be overlooked to begin with, Kass said.
Frogs don’t need to make decisions about cable providers, annual earnings or whether the grass is greener in Indiana or Michigan. They don’t have a choice about leaving Madigan’s “stockpot,” but Illinois residents do.
“Happily, taxpayers aren’t frogs,” Kass said. “They have feet, and they’re running and jumping out of Illinois.”
Illinois Rep. Batinick advances bill to enact property tax freeze
State Representative Mark Batinick
For Immediate Release Contact: Debbie Kraulidis
January 9, 2017 (815) 254-0000
Rep. Batinick advances bill to enact property tax freeze
SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois House Revenue & Finance Committee today approved legislation filed by State Representative Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield) to enact a permanent property tax freeze,House Bill 6630. The bill now advances to the full House of Representatives for consideration.
Rep. Batinick’s legislation resets Illinois’ property tax extension formula to 0.0%, starting in levy year 2016 and continuing thereafter with no provision to sunset or be phased out. It also allows voters of any taxing district to approve a levy increase (property tax hike) by referendum, if they so choose.
“Property tax relief is the number one issue for suburban homeowners,” Rep. Batinick said. “We need to provide meaningful property tax reform now that will allow working families and seniors on fixed incomes to afford to stay in their homes. House Bill 6630 would accomplish this bipartisan goal.”
For questions or more information, please call Rep. Batinick’s office at (815) 254-0000.
‘Russia hacking’ narrative despite zero evidence
The establishment doubles down on the phony ‘Russia hacking’ narrative despite zero evidence
John Harwood, the Hillary Clinton operative who poses as a CNBC correspondent and New York Times contributor, got a bit of surprise when he put a poll on his twitter feed asking, “Who do you believe America? Wikileaks, or US intel officials.” By more than 2 to 1, respondents chose Wikileaks.Clearly, only the most ignorant and rabid of statists are falling for the notion that Russians hacked the election. Americans are far more savvy than the pundit and political class believe. No amount of talk about closed door intel briefings or open door intel briefings, media claims, Insane John McClain claims or James Clapper pronouncements can cover the fact that fewer and fewer people believe anything emanating from bowels of the cesspool that is Washington, D.C.
After all, CNN reports that the FBI was not allowed to examine DNC servers to determine whether hacking took place, much less to discover who might be behind it. Instead, the FBI is taking the word of a private corporation named Crowdstrike.
The good people over at Zero Hedge did a little digging into published information available about Crowdstrike and its major players. Crowdstrike’s chief technology officer and co-founder, and the person who wrote a report linking Russia to the DNC hack is a man Dimitri Alperovitch. Previously, Aperovitch was behind a largely debunked report linking the same hackers to alleged hacks of cellphones of Ukrainian artillery by Russians seeking to find their location for bomb targeting.
Alperovitch also happens to be a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a globalist think tank with ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The Atlantic Council is funded by the U.S. military along with defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northop Grumman and Boeing.
Also recall that the intelligence community claiming Russian involvement in the DNC email leaks is the same intelligence community that has recently told us such whoppers as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida, there were moderate rebels in Syria, Bashar Assad used chemical weapons and Russia was bombing civilians in Allepo.
Is it any wonder the people – thinking ones, at least – don’t buy the narrative that Russia hacked the election?
H/T: Zero Hedge
Chicagoland Inauguration, Diplorrr-A-Ball
- Friday, January 20, 2017
- 6:30 to 10:30 pm
- Diplomat West (681 W North Ave. Elmhurst, IL – just west of North Ave & Rt. 83)
- cost $49.00 paypal $49
Facebook page group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1717979815182922/
Here is the paypal link to buy ticket directly via us DuPage Deplorables
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=WEBQGHW4RNRB4
Many of you are going to Washington this day, could you possibly sponsor a ticket for a student who would like to attend? PayPal.Me/DupageDeplorables/50
or you can go via the website with the higher fee at:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/chicagoland-inauguration-deplorrr-a-ball-tickets-30729724433
Mike Irving , DuPage Deplorables ph 630-833-4881
Many of you are going to Washington this day, could you possibly sponsor a ticket for a student who would like to attend? PayPal.Me/DupageDeplorables/50
